12 comments:

Is there any question about it being the Stupid Party? How can it have so few pick-ups compared to last time? Giving back two Senate seats when the other side had 23 in play just shows how poor their ideas are.

They've got to get over the Tea Party, Fundamentalists and military contractors; and create a conservatism suitable for an educated sub/urbanite. More Rudy Giuliani and less Newt Gingrich.

Well. It looks like I can look forward to a day of hearing all the SWPLs in the office gloating tomorrow.

I have no idea what these people are so happy about. Literally one year ago, these were the EXACT same people talking about how horrible this country is, and how everything was going down the drain, and how the only sensible thing to do in response was to camp out in a park until a revolution happened. They seriously do not remember that far back.

"They've got to get over the Tea Party, Fundamentalists and military contractors; and create a conservatism suitable for an educated sub/urbanite. More Rudy Giuliani and less Newt Gingrich."

Dude...who do you think Mitt was? He was the anti-Tea Party, anti-Fundamentalist, squishy-wishy-washy-moderate educated suburbanite.

I agree that the right-wing GOP primary candidates were particularly bad this year, but, the whole point of Mitt's nomination was that he was the anti-Newt, the anti-Huckabee, the anti-Palin, etc.

Well you got what you wanted! And failed miserably. So please don't blame this on the Tea Party types and other right-wingers....they would have lost too, but they would have lost honestly for what they believed in, rather than bowing and scraping and flip flopping and trying to be all things to all middle-of-the-road-idiots.

There weren't any right-wingers in this election; you can't blame them for losing an election they were not in.

Mitt had to completely shift his relatively centrist platform to the hard right. The worst parts of the right. Mitt Romney lost because he was flip flopping between far right, and what he did as a governor of Massachusetts (moderate the masses could respect).

Even the dimmest bulb out there knew that Mitt wasn't a right-winger after the first debate. Him pandering to the right-wing during the primaries is a complete red herring. Turning the GOP into an even more squishy-wishy-washy-stand-for-nothing-believe-in-nothing party is not going to start winning the GOP elections.

Giuliani is an even worse example since he does, like the neocons, believe in something; unfortunately he believes in the police state and more wars for Israeli. Those are "principals" we could do without.

"Dude...who do you think Mitt was? He was the anti-Tea Party, anti-Fundamentalist, squishy-wishy-washy-moderate educated suburbanite."

Yep, Mitt was the moderate one of the bunch, just as GWB was. Remember "compassionate conservative," which was code for "liberal Republican"? Everyone's faulty memory thinks Bush was some sort of divisive gunslinger, but that wasn't the case at all. Part of his appeal was that he'd worked so closely with Democrats in Texas, and he started his administration by buddying up to Ted Kennedy. The war stuff didn't start until after 9/11, and most Democrats were right there with him on it until they realized there was more advantage to being against it.

Mitt was the same way: certainly not as conservative as most of the other candidates, but he did have a track record of getting things done, even if some of those things were more leftist than we'd like. Very much the moderate, non-abortion-obsessed, inclusive, big-tent candidate that we keep getting told we have to settle for.

We've been trying it the "educated, sub/urbanite" way since 1992, barely squeezing out wins when they should have been landslides, and losing big the rest of the time. Now, demographic change and the increase in dependency (of all sorts) on government means we can't even win that way when it should be a slam dunk. Could we try a real conservative, please, just once?

One major problem is that a lot of us are still voting for what we think or wish the Republican Party is, while many have just given up on it.

The GOP is not anti-affirmative action......"

Quite right. The GOP is NOT a conservative party. If you look at the Republican party's entire existence, it could only be called conservative for a forty year period: roughly 1908-1948 (Taft-to-Taft).

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.